Key Action Update History

Loading..

1. Recommendation: Bahamas ? Exuma: This project has been severely delayed in execution. With only one year left to complete a three year project it is important that a decision is taken by the PCU quickly to either; (i) suspend this project and utilise the resources elsewhere (see below) or; (ii) to further encourage the Exuma project team to accelerate their implementation providing a clear commitment to complete the project within the remaining time of the GEF-IWCAM.
If the decision is taken to cancel this project then alternative options for utilising the funds need to be reviewed by the PCU and presented to the PSC (September 2009) as a matter of urgency. The MTE considered this to be an opportunity to replicate successful activities from an existing project in another (ideally non-demonstration country) location. This would provide a powerful proof of the success of the project beyond that which is already planned
Recommendation 1:
The PCU resolves the issue over the late starting of this demonstration project. If the decision is taken to proceed with the existing project, then assurances need to be established that the work can be successfully implemented in one year. If the decision is to cancel the project then the PCU should identify and recommend alternative strategies to utilise the funds and to obtain PSC approval for this change.

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
The project will proceed. This decision was taken by the agencies involved, after discussions with the participating country representatives. The Project Steering committee encouraged Bahamas to move ahead at full speed, when they met in September, and agreed to monitor progress more closely, with specific involvement of PSC members

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Extensive consultations have taken place with the local authorities, including a Field Mission in July. Numerous teleconferences have been held, including the week of November 27, and progress has accelerated. The local authorities have prepared work plans, arranged for procurements and begun public awareness-raising activities[Added: 2012/06/26]

UNDP - PCU

2010/09

Completed

2. Recommendation: Finding 2
Tobago: The implementation of the Buccoo Reef Project is progressing generally well (and indeed the results of the monitoring will have significant regional importance with regards to baseline information with relevance to climate change). However the MTE highlighted some communication issues between the NGO executing the project and the Tobago House of Assembly and the need to review the proposed stress reduction activity of the THA which is co-funding to the project.
The THA believes that there is insufficient project control over the demonstration project. As a strong supporter of the demonstration project and an important partner in ensuring the sustainability of the IWCAM activities it is important that any perceived communication issues between the THA and the Tobago project team are overcome. Recommendation: The PCU needs to convene a meeting with the THA and Buccoo Reef Trust to review the project activities and to confirm the future steps towards replication and sustainability. This meeting should be considered a matter of urgency. The results of these discussions should be reported to the PSC (September 2009).
The stress reduction that this project is expected to deliver is delayed. The Tobago House of Assembly is currently proposing a scheme to eliminate surface wastewater from drains by discharging these into the underlying coral base. Whilst this removes the surface discharges of wastewater the coral base will provide limited nutrient (or bacteria) reduction prior to acting as a diffuse source directly to the sea.
Recommendation 2:
The Buccoo Reef Trust together with the PCU should review the scope of the proposed THA project to ensure that it has a positive impact on the environment. If this activity is not sufficiently beneficial in providing Stress Reduction or the activities will not deliver stress reduction in the lifetime of the demonstration project then alternative and rapid actions should be identified that will achieve the necessary SR. (Report to the PSC September 2009).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
An alternative to the waste treatment and stress reduction measures is being proposed by the BRT. This involves installation of silt traps, which will reduce the load of sediments impacting the Buccoo Bay and reef.

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

BRT identified alternative, rapid SR actions. These include construction of a wetland wastewater treatment system to reduce pollution of Buccoo Bay from fish processing. Support for this activity was provided in large part by the THA and an excellent partnership with BRT and the private sector was effected[Added: 2012/06/26]

UNDP - PCU

2010/09

Completed

3. Recommendation: Finding 3
All the demonstration projects have been informed by the PCU about the need for, and importance of, clear Stress Reduction for these projects to be seen as successes. In addition the MTE is recommending
Recommendation 3:
that success criteria developed by the PCU should also include the development of clear replication and sustainability action plans by the demonstration projects and the capturing of the lessons learned for inclusion on the GEF IW:LEARN (and other) web sites from all the demonstration projects. In addition there should be a requirement on the national projects to assist with promoting and sharing the success within their respective countries. (Report to PSC 2010).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Consultants, in conjunction with the PCU and National counterparts, will prepare Case Studies and Experience Notes, using the IW:LEARN format, to capture relevant experiences and lessons. These will be available to other countries through the website, the Clearing House Mechanism (to be established), and through the IW:LEARN website, among others. A documentary, along with other articles and newsletters, will be used to elaborate the successes.

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

PCU, through consultants, capturing lessons learned and preparing Experience Notes and Case Studies for all Demos. These will be all placed on relevant websites, including IWCAM and IW:LEARN. Outreach at the national level is evident through preparation of awareness material and presentation at various fora[Added: 2012/06/26]

UNDP - PCU

2011/01

Completed

4. Recommendation: Finding 4
The MTE has highlighted difficulties in establishing the actual resources committed by co-financed activities. Whilst this applies to the project as a whole it is clear that the main source of co-funds is from the governments of the region for the demonstration projects. The Project Document indicated that the governments would commit 82.899 M USD as co-funding towards the GEF-IWCAM. It is imperative that the resources that are clearly already committed by governments for the demonstration projects (and for core project activities, such as IWRM and legislative review) are documented.
Recommendation 4:
With the support of the PCU, demonstration projects and government focal points collectively identify national in-kind and cash contributions to the GEF-IWCAM. The PCU could consider adding a session to the proposed workshop on Project Management to assist with ensuring a common approach to identifying the co-funds provided. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Efforts will be made to capture co-financing from Demonstration projects and through the regional components

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Co-financing training incorporated into Project Management training delivered in Sep 2009. IWCAM Admin Officer met with ?sister? project (GEF-WIOLab) and devised approach to estimating co-financing, as it was considered unfeasible to expect Participating Countries to provide all information. Demo projects supported in reporting on co-financing, through their 6-monthly reports. IAs and EAs provided co-financing information to include in PIR/APR.[Added: 2012/06/26]

UNEP ? UNDP ? PCU CEHI ? CAR/RCU

No due date

No deadline established

5. Recommendation: Finding 5
The PCU has already initiated discussions to assist the demonstration projects (and the core activities undertaken by the PCU) with the identification of lessons learned and developing replication strategies. A number of options exist on how to ensure that this information is extracted and presented in a user-friendly way. These include holding workshop(s) with the demonstration projects (and to include the non-demonstration countries) and by the PCU visiting the projects, for example. The advantage of holding workshops (and the recommendation would be to consider two workshops ? an initial meeting to provide guidance and then a final workshop to present / review all experiences and lessons) or by visiting the projects (either the PCU or through an external professional writer) should be assessed by PCU and the most appropriate approach agreed as a matter of urgency. This process should link in with the development of the Clearing House Mechanism (see below) and co-ordinate with IW:LEARN.
Recommendation 5:
The PCU review the options against the constraints of time and budget and present a detailed approach for endorsement to the next PSC (September 2009).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
As stated above (see Recommendation 3), lessons learned and best practices are currently being captured. Another Lessons Learned workshop will take place during the next Caribbean Environmental Forum in June 2010.

6. Recommendation: Finding 6
The GEF-IWCAM project attracted significant country co-funding at the Project Document stage. At the MTE it has not been possible to establish the quantity of resources that has been contributed by the countries within the GEF-IWCAM (see recommendation above). A key element to replication of project activities and an important aspect to sustainability of the IWCAM concepts is the replication within the participating countries of the experiences from the demonstration projects funded from national sources. This would be a very positive sign of national support for these activities (which are consistent with the LBS Protocol) and a clear proof of the project success to the GEF.
Recommendation 6:
The PSC agree to identify activities to be replicated within the region using national resources within the life of the GEF-IWCAM project and to actively seek governmental commitment and support for this replication. A minimum of six demonstration activities should be initiated before the end of the GEF-IWCAM. (Report to the PSC in 2010).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted (with reservations as to the number of demonstration activities which might be initiated)
Based on the outcomes of the Demo projects currently being implemented and the evaluation of Lessons Learned, some efforts will be made to promote the best practices and keep countries engaged.

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

NEPA (Jamaica) agrees to implement Watershed Area Management Mechanism (WAMM) developed by IWCAM in all other watersheds in Jamaica. Government of St. Lucia agrees to replicate wetland filtration systems from Fond D?Or in other rural communities. THA agrees to replicate best practices from the Buccoo Reef and Courland Watershed project, including the partnership between government and NGO[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Completed

7. Recommendation: Finding 7
Private sector engagement: The private sector and, specifically the hotel and tourism sector, is a key beneficiary to improvements in the environment. To date their involvement has been relatively limited (some positive examples include the Fair Trade participation in the St Lucia demonstration and the role of the tourism industry on the inter-sectoral committee in Trinidad and Tobago). It would be desirable in the latter stages of the GEF-IWCAM to consider more active engagement to stimulate the private sector, ideally leading to possible private sector replication of some activities.
Recommendation 7:
The PCU to consider preparing literature on IWCAM aimed at the hotel/tourist industry (for example) to explain the benefits of environmental improvements and how IWCAM approaches can assist the private sector implement these improvements. (Agreement at PSC 2009 with material available by January 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Material packages to be prepared

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Outreach to private sector has increased, for example at the Haina Industrial Park in Dominican Republic. A private-public partnership was established for the stress reduction activity at the fish plant in Tobago (see Finding #2). Another private sector interest has taken the lead in relation to pump-out of yachts in Elizabeth Harbour, Exuma, in support of the Demo efforts.[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Overdue-Initiated

8. Recommendation: Finding 8
Clearing House Mechanism: The CHM will be an important tool for dissemination and sustainability of the project ideas. Currently the budget allocated to this activity is considered by the MTE to be too small. In addition the future management and operation of the CHM has to be assured. CEHI has indicated that this would be a role that they are willing and able to adopt.
Recommendation 8:
The PCU should prepare a budget revision for approval by the PSC (September 2009) and request that CEHI provides the CHM support. CEHI should be asked to commit sufficient resources (money and skills) to ensure the success of this important tool for five years. Further support and coordination at the Wider Caribbean level is expected to take place through UNEP CAR/RCU and the framework of the Cartagena Convention.

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted (with reservations as to role of CEHI)
UNEP CAR/RCU will assume responsibility for the CHM, as CEHI has indicated that it is unable to do so presently

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Consultants designing the CHM, with inputs from the PCU, CAR/RCU and CEHI[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU/ UNEP CAR/RCU

2010/12

Completed

9. Recommendation: Finding 9
The rainwater harvesting project in St Lucia has developed considerable support and interest from the local community. Whilst the prime motivator in the community for implementing rainwater harvesting is related to drinking water quality improvement and to a lesser extent, to security of supply, there is an operational cost to users (e.g. purchase of filters, power, disinfection etc.). It would be interesting for the demonstration project to explore whether the water supply organisation would offer financial discounts in the cost of mains water to those households with ?alternative? sources of drinking water. Not only would this encourage more households to adopt rainwater harvesting but it would reduce the overall demand for mains water. Such financial discounts could help offset the costs of installation and maintenance by users of rainwater harvesting.
Recommendation 9:
St Lucia demonstration project (with the support of the PCU) to explore options (including alternative mechanisms) for financial inducements with the water supply company to encourage replication of the approach to water harvesting. (Report to PSC 2010). This should take account of any local policies (for example privatisation discussions) that will impact water supply issues.

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
NFP is St. Lucia is aware of the recommendation. Action required nationally and considered beyond the scope of PCU.

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

NONE[Added: 2012/06/26]

NFP St Lucia

No due date

No deadline established

10. Recommendation: Finding 10
The demonstration projects should be encouraged to further promote the use of M&E procedures and in particular, the indicators developed under GEF-IWCAM post-project
Recommendation 10
The PCU with the demonstration projects to identify appropriate means (e.g. additional training) to further utilise the M&E practices developed as part of an ?exit strategy?. (Report to PSC 2010).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Additional training and technical support will be provided

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Support provided to PCs by PCU in preparation of indicators for International Waters Results Template, as part of Annual PIR/APR[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Completed

11. Recommendation: Promoting IWCAM ? regionally / globally
Finding 11
The GEF-IWCAM project has been an innovative test by the GEF of a project developing an integrated approach to watershed and coastal area management. At the MTE there are already some lessons learned for SIDS programmes elsewhere and for further promoting the strengths of integrated water management (fresh and sea water). For the second half of the GEF-IWCAM project the following recommendations are made.
Whilst climate change impacts and adaptation were not explicitly included in the project document, it is clear that many of the activities undertaken on IWRM, rainwater harvesting, river bank restoration, monitoring (and especially reef monitoring) etc. are of interest to the current climate discussions. It is highly appropriate for the GEF-IWCAM to strengthen its links with regional and national centres addressing climate change to share activities and lessons learned.
Recommendation 11:
PCU, together with UNEP CAR-RCU and CEHI, to develop stronger links and to share information from the GEF-IWCAM project with the Regional Climate Change Centre in Belize and other relevant regional Climate Change Projects for SIDS. (Report PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Outreach to CCCCC

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Attempts made to collaborate with and meet CCCCC, including a mission to Belize.
Support provided to CEF, which focused on the follow-on to the Copenhagen CC Conference.PCU participated in OAS Round Table looking at Flood Management and Climate Change.
[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Completed

12. Recommendation: Finding 12
The future promotion of the IWCAM concept involving IWRM and coastal management will fall to UNEP CAR-RCU and CEHI post project. It is important that these organisations, with the support of the PCU, develop a strategy to continue the promotion
Recommendation 12:
The PCU to assist CAR-RCU and CEHI develop a strategy to continue the work of the GEF-IWCAM project by continuing to promote an integrated approach to watershed and coastal management. This can be considered an important element of the GEF-IWCAM ?exit strategy?. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Greater integration of IWCAM activities into the programmes of CEHI and CAR/RCU

13. Recommendation: Finding 13
The GEF-IWCAM project is an important vehicle assisting the LBS Protocol ratification process. Whilst the success of the GEF-IWCAM project can not be simplistically tied to the Protocol?s ratification there is a need for the project to clearly show the contribution of the GEF-IWCAM to the LBS Protocol ratification process. This will assist with showing the important contributions to regional and global agreements through the assistance provided by the GEF and other donors.
Recommendation 13:
The PCU should summarise the assistance that the GEF-IWCAM has given to the ratification and/or implementation of the LBS Protocol (for example, using proxy indicators ? e.g. through IWRM and LBS Promotional workshops, strengthening of laboratories and monitoring, sensitizing of high level policy and decision makers; etc.). This recommendation should also be extended to other relevant regional and global agreements that the GEF-IWCAM project can show contributions towards (e.g. CBD, MDGs, CC, etc.). This information will form an important and lasting indication of the significant contributions that GEF-IWCAM has made to environmental management and protection in the region. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Assistance from IWCAM will be presented within context of LBS Protocol and MDGs etc.

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Support for LBS Protocol presented at TCC training activity for Dominica, and Grenada (which took place in St. Lucia). Support for IWRM Planning (as a contribution to MDGs) promoted in numerous ways, including at conferences, workshops and in publications[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Completed

14. Recommendation: Finding 14
The GEF-IWCAM has effectively established national Inter-sectoral Committees (ISC) across the countries involved in the project that are integral components of the demonstration projects. Balanced with further public awareness of IWCAM issues these ISC provide a strong political basis for the sustainability of the IWCAM concept.
Recommendation 14:
The GEF-IWCAM should further encourage (e.g. by summarising the achievements and the national benefits to date) the ISC and promote the benefits and successes of these committees at regional intergovernmental meetings (e.g. CARICOM) after the end of the project. This will be a key means to implement the LBS Protocol. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Support will be given to ISCs for meetings (e.g. funding; technical inputs)

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

ISC in Trinidad & Tobago being re-established and will be supported for meeting in January 2011. ISC meetings integrated with IWRM Awareness and Planning activities across PCs[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU

2011/07

Overdue-Initiated

15. Recommendation: Findings 15
The GEF-IWCAM has established an important network of ?National Focal Points? (NFPs) in governmental organisations across the region who are now familiar with the IWCAM concept. The Cartagena Secretariat (UNEP CAR-RCU) also maintains a network of NFPs to assist with the LBS Protocol ratification and implementation. It would be beneficial if the links between these two sets of NFPs were strengthened to ensure sharing of information between these highly linked activities in the region.
Recommendation 15:
The PCU together with UNEP CAR-RCU to encourage NFPs (e.g. by gaining government approval for the implementation of the LBS Protocol) to further co-operate to enhance the work of both GEF-IWCAM and the LBS Protocol activities. (Report to PSC ? 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
TCC activities and advocacy

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

TCC activity organized between SLU, DOM and GRE in support of LBS ratification. LBS Awareness workshops convened. Pilot activities in support of IWCAM/IWRM/LBS supported[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU/ UNEP CAR/RCU

2011/07

Completed

16. Recommendation: Finding 16
The GEF-IWCAM has developed a toolkit for national assessment of policies and legislation addressing IWCAM concepts. This toolkit was further refined to be specific to assist countries with the LBS Protocol ratification process at the suggestion of UNEP CAR-RCU, showing the added benefit of the active involvement of this EA and the synergy between the work of the GEF-IWCAM project and the overarching goal of the Cartagena Convention and the Protocol on Land Based Sources.
Recommendation 16:
The PCU and UNEP CAR-RCU develop a strategy for the final part of the project to continue to assist and support countries implement the roadmap detailed in the guidance to further promote the LBS Protocol ratification. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
See Finding #15 above

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

See Finding #15 above. [Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU/UNEP CAR/RCU

2011/07

Completed

17. Recommendation: Finding 17
A major activity of the GEF-IWCAM project has been the development and implementation of a set of ?GEF? indicators covering Process, Stress Reduction and Environmental Status. This work has resulted in an extensive list (or templates) of potential indicators for adoption by the demonstration projects. This activity has been undertaken with the full support and participation of government representatives who have endorsed the approach. This has assisted with the indicators having a wider use within the region and potentially aiding the longer-term use of indicators for monitoring the impacts of the project. At the STAP review of the IWCAM proposal a suggestion was made to consider post-project monitoring of impacts and outcomes of the project. This is especially important in such a project where it is unlikely that any Environmental Status Indicators would report any changes as a result of the project activities. It was recognised at the STAP review, that as projects end, so do their budgets. The MTE considers post project monitoring to be an essential element for GEF to assess the real benefits of such interventions and that some form of reporting of environmental improvements should be considered in future.
Recommendation 17:
The PCU with the support of the demonstration project?s experience to develop a strategy to further mainstream the use of the GEF indicators by the governments and to report on these indicators to the Clearing House Mechanism post-project. Further the recommendation is for the manager of the Clearing House Mechanism (ideally CEHI) with the support of UNEP CAR-RCU and UNDP to report indicators to the GEF (through for example IW:LEARN) after 5, 10 and 15 years. This time period should enable the (anticipated) environmental improvements to be detected. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted, with reservations about the feasibility of monitoring and reporting in 5, 10 and 15 years
Pilot-testing of indicators. PCs required to report on indicators, so that the ?habit? will be developed.

18. Recommendation: Other Recommendations
Finding 18
The MTE has suggested through the Project Assessment Rubric (Annex 8) a number of revisions to the project logframe proposed in the Project Document. This should be closely reviewed and discussed by the PSC and if agreed included for review during the Final Evaluation of the GEF-IWCAM project. The PCU, with the assistance of other project partners, should ensure that the data required to report against this rubric is collected.
Recommendation 18:
The PSC to review the Project Assessment Rubric and to make recommendations for modifications and approval. (PSC 2009).

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Accepted
Working Group of PSC to review Rubric

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Rubric reviewed at PSC and via ?round-robin? and modified. Modifications submitted to IAs and EAs[Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU/PSC

2009/12

Completed

19. Recommendation: Finding 19
There is a need to encourage wider access to environmental information throughout the civil society and to motivate governments (showing both the mechanisms and benefits) to enable this information to be made available to the public in a timely way. The GEF-IWCAM project is undertaking important activities with local communities through the demonstration projects, but access to information has received little attention so far. Whilst this may be beyond the scope of the current project this is an important element in water governance that should be strengthened This is especially important as the Annex X of the LBS Protocol states that governments should ?promote public access to relevant information and documentation concerning pollution of the Convention area from land-based sources and activities and the opportunity for public participation in decision-making processes concerning the implementation of this Protocol.? This need for public access to information was also highlighted in the toolkit for institutional, policy and legislative improvements in support of the IWCAM approach in Caribbean SIDS report.
Recommendation 19:
The PCU should encourage the countries (e.g. by demonstrating the clear benefits of the IWCAM approach and showing how this will assist with LBS Protocol implementation) further on this issue and identify means (with the support of UNEP CAR-RCU) to seek additional resources to fund future activities on access to environmental information. (Report to PSC 2010)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

Reccommendation Not Accepted
This is considered well beyond the scope of the project. As such, nothing is planned through the project

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

The project has sought to implement conditionalities when providing laboratory equipment to participating countries. This includes making available information on data generated through use of such equipment. The results have not been encouraging to date.[Added: 2012/06/26]

UNEP CAR/RCU; CEHI

No due date

No deadline established

20. Recommendation: Finding 20
Despite the GEF-IWCAM project operating for 3 years there is still apparently confusion in the countries on the roles and responsibilities of all the agencies and other organisations involved. It would be beneficial to refresh the understanding at the country level of the roles of GEF, UNEP, UNDP (Country Offices and Regional Centre), UNEP CAR-RCU, CEHI, UNOPS and the PCU.
Recommendation 20:
The PCU to prepare (or update) a brief summary of the roles and responsibilities of all the main organisations involved in this complex project. (Present to September 2009 PSC)

Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/26]

PCU will remind PCs of the agencies involved and respective roles, as appropriate. A brief is not considered necessary

Key Actions:

Key Action

Responsible

DueDate

Status

Comments

Documents

Roles of agencies included in most presentations on IWCAM and in speeches or remarks made by representatives of IAs and EAs when speaking of the project[Added: 2012/06/26]